Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best

Rohan Anand; John Norrie; Judy Bradley; Danny McAuley; Mike Clarke

doi:10.1136/bmj.l6228

Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best

Rohan Anand, John Norrie, Judy Bradley, Danny McAuley, Mike Clarke

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

549 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Blinding is intended to reduce bias but can make studies unnecessarily complex or lead to results that no longer address the clinical question

Original language	English
Article number	l6228
Number of pages	5
Journal	BMJ
Volume	368
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6228 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6228
Publication status	Published - 21 Jan 2020

Keywords

Clinical Trials as Topic/organization & administration
Data Accuracy
Double-Blind Method
Humans
Observer Variation
Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods
Patient Safety
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods
Research Design/standards

Access to Document

10.1136/bmj.l6228Licence: Unspecified
10.1136/bmj.l6228

Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best
Copyright 2019 BMJ. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Final published version, 874 KBLicence: Unspecified

Novel methods within a randomised controlled trial in respiratory disease
Author: Anand, R., Dec 2021
Supervisor: Bradley, J. (Supervisor), Clarke, M. (Supervisor), McAuley, D. (Supervisor) & O'Neill, B. (External person) (Supervisor)
Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis › Doctor of Philosophy

File

Cite this

@article{3f05e67c051842ada4b78d4f48d5229c,

title = "Fool{\textquoteright}s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best",

abstract = "Blinding is intended to reduce bias but can make studies unnecessarily complex or lead to results that no longer address the clinical question",

keywords = "Clinical Trials as Topic/organization & administration, Data Accuracy, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Observer Variation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods, Patient Safety, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods, Research Design/standards",

author = "Rohan Anand and John Norrie and Judy Bradley and Danny McAuley and Mike Clarke",

year = "2020",

month = jan,

day = "21",

doi = "10.1136/bmj.l6228",

language = "English",

volume = "368",

journal = "BMJ",

issn = "1756-1833",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best

AU - Anand, Rohan

AU - Norrie, John

AU - Bradley, Judy

AU - McAuley, Danny

AU - Clarke, Mike

PY - 2020/1/21

Y1 - 2020/1/21

N2 - Blinding is intended to reduce bias but can make studies unnecessarily complex or lead to results that no longer address the clinical question

AB - Blinding is intended to reduce bias but can make studies unnecessarily complex or lead to results that no longer address the clinical question

KW - Clinical Trials as Topic/organization & administration

KW - Data Accuracy

KW - Double-Blind Method

KW - Humans

KW - Observer Variation

KW - Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods

KW - Patient Safety

KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods

KW - Research Design/standards

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.l6228

DO - 10.1136/bmj.l6228

M3 - Article

C2 - 31964628

VL - 368

JO - BMJ

JF - BMJ

SN - 1756-1833

M1 - l6228

ER -

Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Student Theses

Novel methods within a randomised controlled trial in respiratory disease

Cite this